What kind of a crazy article is this from UPI???

vesicles said:

In my opinion, IF China gets into a conflict in the South China Sea, the US would/should be more then happy to stand by and watch, instead of getting involved. ....

Click to expand...

In my opinion 'getting into a conflict in SCS' and 'invasion of the Phillipines and Vietnam' are two very DIFFERENT scenerios. The former yes I do agree the US may play a backseat role BUT the former I think the USN will get directly involve.
One would be limited conflict.. the other is total war. BIG difference. This assinine article from UPI was reffering to an actual invasion not some small conflict that's why I posted it and called it crazy

Well this is all based on the asssumption and prejudice from the West that the Chinese government controls all the media so therefore whatever the media says is official. If that were true then there wouldn't be all the hoopla over the recent CCTV vs Baidu flap. That wouldn't have happened if the government were in control of everything. The US's advantage is they can hide what they do behind the private sector. FOX News was accused of taking talking points from the Bush's White House. Is the New York Times a mouthpiece of the government since they put out the lies to make the case for the Iraq War? Just because they're the private sector somehow that draws a line from being the mouthpiece for the government?

There was a story out of Hong Kong where a senior politician came out and said that the US was conspiring with notorious democratic Hong Kong politicians and media tycoons to have Hong Kong declare itself independent in order to isolate China and disrupt the economy. Is that any less serious of an accusation?

i.e. said:

@red_sword.

your argument on one hand saying US is stupid to get involved because of economic ties, but on the other hand argue that this whole thing was stirred up by US to get a military confrontation. kinda conflicting arguments there.

...
while we are at it,

Carthago delenda est. remember that Line?

Click to expand...

i.e., I actually agrees with your rest of this post, but hey, my #8 post is a one-liner, you read too much into it. I was flanking Bltizo about "guys, don't bother with sterotype or even brainwash media".

And I take it you are refering to 74 and 88 gunboat fire over SCS, not the 1979 border war, right?

We really should stop following the tracks the sterotype media has set for us:

Astonish - doubt - argue with the source - argue with other arguer - add oil to the fire of the public-know-nothing-consensus - provide munition for the same sterotype media.

Porns dies out when people do not astonishing with it, so dose the media-prostitutes.

bladerunner said:

ROFL The entire world let alone the countries in the region would'nt like to see China/US actually control the South China Seas

Click to expand...

and thats why US want to keep the current situation as it is. US don't want full control of that area, and it won't allow china to control it either.

vesicles said:

In my opinion, IF China gets into a conflict in the South China Sea, the US would/should be more then happy to stand by and watch, instead of getting involved. Washington knows fully well that China benefited mightily from all the conflicts the US is involved. Not directly, but indirectly by wasting so much time and resources in all those conflicts while allowing China to grow unchecked. The US would be more than happy to do the same and watch China wasting some of their money and resource on some insignificant conflicts.

The US might sell a few weapons to those nations fighting China and make a few bucks, but that's pretty much it.

In the Cold War, the US and the Soviets never faced each other directly even though the tension was huge and confrontation was very open. Avoiding direct confrontation was to prevent escalation of conflicts to WWIII. The same strategy would also apply between the US and China, with even bigger constraint because any confrontation between the US and China is not open. On the surface, the US and China are not enemies. So it has to take much much much much much more than a few islands in the South China Sea to get the US and China into a fight.

As to SK and Japan, they would not get involved if the US stays out of it. Historically, there has never been any meaningful relationship by SK/Japan and South China Sea nations. If any, there is tension. So why would SK/Japan get into a fight and risk their national interests for a few islands and those nations they hardly care about? Japan may want to have some of those islands for their own, but they are not worth getting into a war with China. They would be much happier standing by and watch the show.

Click to expand...

we are talking about control of entire south china sea by chinese. No one want that other than chinese. its one of most critical strategic location and resource rich. "The area's importance largely results from one-third of the world's shipping transiting through its waters, and that it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed" you think Japan, S.korea, US will not be worried if china has control over it?? they will get involve either directly or indirectly. philippine has always been US ally, and its also US interest not allowing china to control over that area. US might not involve early during the conflict, but if US think china is winning, and south china sea will become chinese territory soon. they will very likely invovled. indirectly they can support other contries in that area, selling more weapons to taiwan, etc etc. directly US can send a CVBG there. if US send carrier in 96 to taiwan, what make you think US won't send ships there just to see chinese reaction. On top of that they gonna have support of S.korea, japan and other countries. chinese navy is still no match for US navy. futhermore if china attack US ships first, this will create an outcry in US. The public opinion in US is not positive toward china right now. A conflict between US and china will also give US excuse to default its debt toward china, and do you think US will allow US company continue to do business in china? So what will china do if US send in tis CVBG at the request of its allies? if south china sea is not a critical location, i don't think US will get involved.

s002wjh said:

we are talking about control of entire south china sea by chinese. No one want that other than chinese. its one of most critical strategic location and resource rich.

(...)

US might not involve early during the conflict, but if US think china is winning, and south china sea will become chinese territory soon. they will very likely invovled. indirectly they can support other contries in that area, selling more weapons to taiwan, etc etc. directly US can send a CVBG there. if US send carrier in 96 to taiwan, what make you think US won't send ships there just to see chinese reaction. On top of that they gonna have support of S.korea, japan and other countries. chinese navy is still no match for US navy. futhermore if china attack US ships first, this will create an outcry in US.

(...)

So what will china do if US send in tis CVBG at the request of its allies? if south china sea is not a critical location, i don't think US will get involved.

Click to expand...

In 1996, China didn't have Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles.

What will the US do in SCS in the event of an armed conflict in the area? What good would they be if they don't take part in the fight? And if they do take side, who do you think the American public will blame for the sinking of a US Carrier: the Chinese, or the White House for taking part in a conflict that doesn't even concern them in the first place?

The public opinion in US is not positive toward china right now. A conflict between US and china will also give US excuse to default its debt toward china, and do you think US will allow US company continue to do business in china?

Click to expand...

I see this ludicrous argument popping up all the time. The US doesn't owe a debt to China the way you owe a mortgage to your bank. The US government issues Treasury Bills, which foreign states, including but not limited to China, buys.



The US cannot selectively default on its debt toward a particular country. If it tries to default, it will default on ALL its debts, effectively rendering its Treasury Bonds worthless. China, as the "largest" holder of US bonds, holds only 26% of those bonds. Do you think the countries that hold the rest 74% (including Japan which holds 20%) will be happy about the US defaulting on its debt just to spite China?


Here's a pretty amusing link to read on just this topic:

s002wjh said:

you think Japan, S.korea, US will not be worried if china has control over it?? they will get involve either directly or indirectly. philippine has always been US ally, and its also US interest not allowing china to control over that area. US might not involve early during the conflict, but if US think china is winning, and south china sea will become chinese territory soon. they will very likely invovled.

Click to expand...

There are many ways of solving a worry. The US was seriously worried about China being in the hands of communists in the late 40's. To the West, communism was an evil bigger than anything they had encountered. Let's face it, they were willing to work with Nazis to fight communists, but did they deploy troops to China and fight the PLA? No! They trained Nationalists and provided them with weapons and money, etc. That's it. You don't have to be physically involved to solve a problem.

Any direct conflict with another nation can escalate. A direct conflict between two of the biggest nations in the world could escalate to something no one wants to see. At the very least, it will suck dry all the resources one has. Both the US and China know this. The US can certainly provide enough support to the SCS nations to prolong their conflict with China to the point that China may not think it's worth it. That's the strategy China and the Soviets were using in the Vietnam War, i.e. supporting Vietnam indirectly and make the US suffer to the point that they decided this is not worth it any more and pulled out. Note that neither China nor the Soviets was directly involved in the war.

s002wjh said:

On top of that they gonna have support of S.korea, japan and other countries. chinese navy is still no match for US navy. futhermore if china attack US ships first, this will create an outcry in US.

Click to expand...

China knows better and will not attack US ships unless they know a war between the two nations is inevitable. And the US also knows better than to push China into a corner. In the Cold War, there had been many incidents when the US and the Soviets were at the brink of a war, but both sides backed down in the end. Going to war with another nation is a serious serious matter and starting a war between the two nations the size and strength of the US and China is so much more serious. If the US and the Soviets could go at each other's throat with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aiming at each other for half a century without actually getting any direct confrontation, it would take a lot more than a few islands in the SCS to get the US and China fighting.

s002wjh said:

The public opinion in US is not positive toward china right now. A conflict between US and china will also give US excuse to default its debt toward china, and do you think US will allow US company continue to do business in china?

Click to expand...

Public opinion and going to war are two different things. Americans used to hate Japan and SK the same way they hate the Chinese now. Complaining about a few job losses is one thing, but sending your sons and husbands to the battlefield and having a huge chance of them not coming back is a totally different matter.

s002wjh said:

So what will china do if US send in tis CVBG at the request of its allies? if south china sea is not a critical location, i don't think US will get involved.

Click to expand...

The US sent in the CVBG in 1996 because they knew China could do nothing about it. Now? The US will probably think twice about doing the same thing. It seems in time of crisis, cooler heads usually prevail. This seemed to the case between the US and the Soviets. this will be more so between the US and China since the relationship between the US and China is a lot more complex and much closer.

vesicles said:

There are many ways of solving a worry. The US was seriously worried about China being in the hands of communists in the late 40's. To the West, communism was an evil bigger than anything they had encountered. Let's face it, they were willing to work with Nazis to fight communists, but did they deploy troops to China and fight the PLA? No! They trained Nationalists and provided them with weapons and money, etc. That's it. You don't have to be physically involved to solve a problem.

Any direct conflict with another nation can escalate. A direct conflict between two of the biggest nations in the world could escalate to something no one wants to see. At the very least, it will suck dry all the resources one has. Both the US and China know this. The US can certainly provide enough support to the SCS nations to prolong their conflict with China to the point that China may not think it's worth it. That's the strategy China and the Soviets were using in the Vietnam War, i.e. supporting Vietnam indirectly and make the US suffer to the point that they decided this is not worth it any more and pulled out. Note that neither China nor the Soviets was directly involved in the war.



China knows better and will not attack US ships unless they know a war between the two nations is inevitable. And the US also knows better than to push China into a corner. In the Cold War, there had been many incidents when the US and the Soviets were at the brink of a war, but both sides backed down in the end. Going to war with another nation is a serious serious matter and starting a war between the two nations the size and strength of the US and China is so much more serious. If the US and the Soviets could go at each other's throat with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aiming at each other for half a century without actually getting any direct confrontation, it would take a lot more than a few islands in the SCS to get the US and China fighting.



Public opinion and going to war are two different things. Americans used to hate Japan and SK the same way they hate the Chinese now. Complaining about a few job losses is one thing, but sending your sons and husbands to the battlefield and having a huge chance of them not coming back is a totally different matter.



The US sent in the CVBG in 1996 because they knew China could do nothing about it. Now? The US will probably think twice about doing the same thing. It seems in time of crisis, cooler heads usually prevail. This seemed to the case between the US and the Soviets. this will be more so between the US and China since the relationship between the US and China is a lot more complex and much closer.

Click to expand...

yes US will think about it, but US will definitely not stand back and let china take control of south china sea. In the early conflict US can indirectly support ASEAN to counter china. US can also send CVBG to that area while its still consider international water. Then its upto china to decide backdown or confront US CVBG. if china decide to attack, then it will escalate into a much bigger war. furthermore NO countries will support china on taking over south china sea. if china somehow sink a carrier, i doubt american public will stand down, the outcry from US citizen will push US into a navy/air war against china(think peral harbor). the public opinion is against china right now. think this way if US got involved, what does most chinese think, are they gonna outrage at the US involvement or are they gonna think chinese should back down.

japan and SK is ally of US, they have different government, china is not an ally of US nor does it have same political/ideology as US.

if its any other non crucial location and doesn't involve so many countries. US probably won't get involve, but because south china sea is resource rich region that happen to be a critical sea lanes. US will be involved. When is the last time US DIDNT involve in a conflict at a strategy/oil/resourc rich location. when was last time US had a navy drill with philippine due to china move against philippine. how many time US said the right to access sea lanes has to be perserved. All the evidence suggest US will involved somehow if south china sea conflict become a large scale conflict between china and ASEAN.

solarz said:

In 1996, China didn't have Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles.

What will the US do in SCS in the event of an armed conflict in the area? What good would they be if they don't take part in the fight? And if they do take side, who do you think the American public will blame for the sinking of a US Carrier: the Chinese, or the White House for taking part in a conflict that doesn't even concern them in the first place?



I see this ludicrous argument popping up all the time. The US doesn't owe a debt to China the way you owe a mortgage to your bank. The US government issues Treasury Bills, which foreign states, including but not limited to China, buys.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US cannot selectively default on its debt toward a particular country. If it tries to default, it will default on ALL its debts, effectively rendering its Treasury Bonds worthless. China, as the "largest" holder of US bonds, holds only 26% of those bonds. Do you think the countries that hold the rest 74% (including Japan which holds 20%) will be happy about the US defaulting on its debt just to spite China?


Here's a pretty amusing link to read on just this topic:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

we havent prove the reliability/operation status of asbm. even if china has its ASBM operational, do they want to use it if US cvbg is in south china sea, international water.

as for foreign debt, war often eliminate foreign debt. iraq-kuwait war for example. each Treasury Bond has ID value during auction, just like ID on $100 bill. this eliminate scam, but also allow US to know where did they sold those Treasury Bond to(thats how US know china hold $1.3T T-bills). if US selective default during a war, all the Treasury Bond in chinese hand is worthless. no one will buy those from china. and since US has all the Treasury Bond ID, it has fairly good idea which bill belong to whom. china will have diffculty to get rid of those.
its like if you own certain banks mortagage and decide not to pay it, the bank can't sell that debts to other bank, because no other banks will buy it, so the bank has to take a lost.